IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> PRO> : HTTP vs. HTTP-lite; HTTP headers

IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> PRO> : HTTP vs. HTTP-lite; HTTP headers

Re: IPP> PRO> : HTTP vs. HTTP-lite; HTTP headers

Carl Kugler (carlk3@hotmail.com)
25 Aug 1998 23:08:26 -0000

Bob Herriot wrote:
> I wrote this language. My reasoning was that the sender of the request or response must include a header "Cache-control: no-cache" in order to prevent caching from occurring in various proxy servers. But an origin server (containing IPP support) should not support Cache-control because cache-control is intended for proxy servers.

The HTTP/1.1 spec says "Responses to this method [POST] are not cachable, unless the response includes appropriate Cache-Control or Expires header fields". So I don't think the sender of the request or response must include a header "Cache-control: no-cache" in order to prevent caching from occurring.

Also, "Cache directives MUST be passed through by a proxy or gateway application, regardless of their significance to that application, since the directives might be applicable to all recipients along the request/response chain". So Cache-Control will be passed through proxy servers to an origin server containing IPP support.

What does "support" mean in this context?

-Carl

-----
Original Message: http://www.findmail.com/list/ipp/?start=4376
Start a FREE email list at http://www.FindMail.com/